PRAMOD KUMAR UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondents, not to make recovery in pursuance of impugned order dated 07 -08 -1995 (copy Annexure -1 to the writ petition), issued in furtherance to the order of punishment dated 30 -06 -1994 (copy Annexure -4 to the writ petition).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that Petitioner was appointed as Forest Range Officer in the year 1982. Since then the track record of the Petitioner in the service had been unblemished. In the year 1990, the Petitioner was posted as Forest Range Officer in Gaula Range, Tarai (East) Forest Division, Haldwani. During his posting in said range, on 13 -06 -1990, it is alleged that Khalasi of office in connivance with certain outsiders manipulated to take away the keys, kept in the residence of the Petitioner and stole cash of Rs. 1,99,962.80 paise from the Cash Chest kept in the office. The cash stolen was in fact the money recovered on account of duties levied by Forest Department and was to be deposited in District Treasury. A First Information Report of the incident was lodged with the concerned Police Station. It is stated in the writ petition that in the entire course, the Petitioner was not at fault. However, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 07 -07 -1990 which was later revoked on 27 -07 -1990. An enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner and charge sheet was served, alleging the negligence on his part for not keeping the keys safely and not depositing the amount in time with the Treasury. Inquiry Officer though found that there was no intentional act on the part of the Petitioner but the Punishing Authority inflicted punishment of censure, against the Petitioner and also directed that amount of Rs. 1,99,962.80 paise be recovered in instalments by deducting one -third of the salary of the Petitioner every month. Said order dated 30 -06 -1994, has been challenged in this writ petition. It is further stated in the writ petition that the Petitioner made a representation to the department that recovery of the amount be stayed till the criminal case against the accused is decided by the Court. Simultaneously, the Petitioner preferred Departmental Appeal against the aforesaid order dated 30 -06 -1994. Meanwhile, it appears that the main accused in the theft case was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, on 26 -02 -1995 and a recovery proceedings, departmentally started against the Petitioner without keeping in view of the fact that a good amount of the stolen money has already been realized by the police from the culprits. It is further alleged that the inquiry report was not furnished to the Petitioner before the punishment was awarded to him in the departmental inquiry.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.